Creative Zooming

Zoom lenses are popular with most photographers because of the added versatility they offer compared to fixed-focal-length(prime) lenses. A zoom lens allows the photographer to choose the point of view and then vary the perspective/background by changing the focal length and distance to the subject with a single lens. Zooms also let photographers change the subject size in the image and/or the framing without physically moving to get closer or farther away from the subject.

In addition to the conventional selling points, zoom lenses offer important creative possibilities not available when using prime lenses. One creative use of zooms is to change the focal length during a long exposure. The result is a subject centered in the frame appears to be exploding or imploding depending which direction the focal length changes. This technique has endless possible variations all starting from the same point.

A slow shutter speed is required, preferable at least ½ second or longer. Enough time is needed to smoothly change focal lengths during the exposure. If a sharper main subject is desired, part of the exposure should be at a constant focal length and only part of the exposure zoomed. Another way to get a sharper main subject is to use flash. The long shutter speeds required can be achieved by combinations of: low ISO speeds, small f-stops(f/16-f/22) and use of polarizing and/or neutral-density filters.

This technique is best accomplished with the camera locked down on a solid tripod. Hand-holding will produce much less predictable but possibly more interesting results. Unlike the usual compositional advice, zooming during exposure normally looks best with the main subject centered in the frame(that is where the explosion/implosion lines converge).

Every photographer should experiment with all of the variables to find the results they prefer. Once that result is achieved this is a very repeatable technique. Always try variations for different subject matter. If using flash, try both first-curtain and second-curtain synch to see the difference and decide which is preferred. Try zooming both short-to-long and long-to-short-the results will not be the same.

Another variation of this technique is to shoot many exposures at slightly different focal lengths and combining all exposures into one image(this could be done on one frame of film). The result will be a “stepped” zoom look without the streaks of a continuous zoom. This is also best done with the camera on a tripod to keep framing and focus constant.

Compact digital cameras

*Why own a compact digital camera?
Even though I have taken the route of simplifying my DSLR outfit to the bare minimum I still own a compact digital camera as well. There are several reasons for this. The most important reason is for an emergency back-up in case the DSLR goes down. Another is there are times and places it is just not as practical to carry the larger camera, even if only the body and one lens. There is also a down-side to using a compact compared to a DSLR.

*Size, weight, carrying ease and visibility
Sometimes it is just much easier to carry only a compact camera. It might be a windy day on the beach with blowing sand and salt spray or it might be storming with blowing rain or snow. A compact camera can be carried in a pocket and is ready to shoot when pulled out and be quickly protected again. A DSLR is either exposed on a neck strap or in a much less accessible case. Replacement cost in case of damage from the elements is a factor, too. In some areas it might be much wiser not to make a show of carrying camera gear, even if just cheaper “amateur equipment, and becoming a possible target of thieves or hostility. Carrying just a compact camera is less conspicuous. It can be taken from a pocket and a photo taken without bringing it up to eye level and quickly removed from sight again. For “street” photography a compact can be carried hidden in one hand and frames exposed on the fly. A compact is also much quieter than a DSLR so observers don’t know when or if exposures are being made. It can be very liberating to wander around looking for images without a larger and heavier DSLR outfit hanging from the neck or attached to a tripod.

*Image quality
Image quality from compact digital cameras is not the equal of DSLR’s but steps can be taken to maximize that quality. The smaller cameras mostly suffer from a smaller sensor which means smaller individual pixels. Image quality suffers much more as ISO speeds increase than it does with larger sensors. As with a DSLR, always shoot at the lowest practical ISO to get the best image quality. Zoom lenses with very wide focal length ranges tend to suffer much more from linear distortion and aberrations at both the shortest and longest ends of the zoom range. Longer range zooms on compacts are always much slower, too, limiting the usefulness of the longer focal lengths unless a tripod is used.

*Desirable features
When selecting a compact camera I look for a good image stabilization/anti-shake function as a tripod or monopod will not usually be used. Either easily accessible manual exposure or exposure compensation is a must to correct for backlighting or other exposure difficulties. I prefer a zoom in the 4x to 6x range to minimize both image quality fall-off at the focal extremes and speed loss at the long end of the range. I much prefer a zoom range starting at 28mm equivalent or shorter for versatility. It is usually much easier to move closer to a subject than to try to back up through a wall to fit more into the frame. The ability to shoot RAW files is a huge plus but not an absolute deal-breaker. Fitting into a pocket rather than requiring a neck strap or case is high on my list and another reason for choosing a medium-range over a longer-range zoom. A hot-shoe for accessory flash when needed is another plus but also not a deal-breaker.

*What to expect
A good compact digital camera, which includes most of the models currently available, should provide more than adequate image quality for on-screen and web use and for prints up to 8”x10”. Most will start having image-quality issues at larger sizes including softness and noise(grain) as compared to similar shots from a DSLR with a larger sensor. Color and noise problems can be more obvious if RAW shooting is not possible. Using the quality-enhancing techniques outlined in the “Most basic equipment” series will minimize these problems when using compact cameras, too. Just don’t expect to use a compact at maximum focal length and ISO800 for 16”x20” prints for the dining room wall – you will be very disappointed with the results. For images to post on a web site or Flickr or to e-mail to friends or to make 4”x6” prints to show, no one will know what kind of camera was used.

Using the most basic equipment-Part 2

This is the second of a four part series exploring photography using nothing but the most basic of equipment. I will discuss the best parts of using a minimalist camera kit. In part 1 I talked about some of my reasons for doing this. A discussion of what I miss most about not having a full-blown, “professional quality” camera system will follow in Part 3. Finally, in Part 4, some of the “real” reasons for perceived quality differences between “cheap, entry-level” and “top-of-the-line professional” equipment are discussed.

Using only one camera body and two zoom lenses has been an enlightening experience in many different ways. I was always anxious about equipment failure and “needed” to have at least one back-up camera body “just in case”. There was the feeling that not having a wide enough or long enough or fast enough lens should not ever be an excuse for missing a shot. Rain or heat or snow or blowing sand and salt spray were not reasons not to use the camera when there are a couple of spares if one develops a problem. For most lens focal lengths I had both a “standard” lightweight and a “professional” f/2.8 version. The result was a full 45-pound backpack plus tripod that went everywhere with me.

The very best part of using only a minimalist two-lens kit is its weight. My back and neck thank me every day for the change. Now a half day hike along the beach requires only a medium-sized fanny pack to carry everything. The whole enchilada consists of one body, two zoom lenses, one polarizing filter(conveniently fits both lenses),  a shoe-mount flash and either a carbon tripod with ball head or a carbon monopod with tilt head. I also carry a Canon G10 compact digital camera in its own shoulder pouch and a pair of Nikon 10x25 Trailblazer waterproof binoculars. Well under ten pounds for everything and nothing on my back. Freedom!

There is also the freedom from choice, which was unexpectedly quite liberating. No more deciding between the “old” Minolta Maxxum 7D or the “amateur” Sony Alpha100 or the Sony Alpha700 camera bodies. The new Canon digital Rebel body produces better image quality at higher ISO’s than any of them. No more choice of Minolta 16mm fisheye or Minolta 17-35mm “g” lens. Gone is choosing the Minolta 75-300mm f/5.6 or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. All of these lenses produced  approximately equal image quality. The two zooms in the new Canon kit are just as good or better and also very lightweight.

I have recently added a set of automatic Kenko extension tubes for macro work and a Lensbaby “Composer” just to have fun. I had a Lensbaby “3G” for the old Minolta/Sony kit and loved it. The “composer” is smaller, light, easier to pack and carry and does almost everything the “3G” could. It all still fits in the fanny pack or cargo pants.

After the first year the anxiety about equipment failure went away. I realized that these newest cameras, even though very compact and light-weight, were pretty tough and fairly well sealed against the elements. The main reason for previous camera break-downs was dust or water intrusion causing either mechanical or electrical failures. I am pretty hard on my gear and have no problems after two years. No dents or dings(polycarbonate is amazingly resilient), no worn-through paint(that polycarbonate again), no intermittent electrical problems(lighter weight and tougher shell mean less internal shock from a fall) and no dirt inside the mirror box or prism, which surprises me more than anything else.

I have also thoroughly enjoyed the experience of finding ways around the new kits limitations. Sort of a re-learning of some of the basics of photography and an acceptance of the focal lengths available. Having so little to use made me realize how little is really needed. It has certainly changed my thinking about what other equipment I would like to have and why I want it.

Using the most basic equipment-Part 1

This is the first of a four part series exploring photography using nothing but the most basic of equipment. In part 1 I talk about some of my reasons for doing this. Part 2 will discuss the best parts of using a minimalist camera kit. A discussion of what I miss most about not having a full-blown, “professional quality” camera system will follow in Part 3. Finally, in Part 4, some of the “real” reasons for perceived quality differences between “cheap, entry-level” and “top-of-the-line professional” equipment are discussed.

Some readers might be wondering why someone with so much photography experience is using such basic “entry level” equipment. There is a good reason I chose this camera kit and why I have continued using it for nearly two years. I would like to tell a story about it. It is a story about putting myself in the shoes of someone just getting started in photography and having a very limited budget for equipment. It is the story of finding out whether it is really possible to produce a steady stream of “professional quality” images with a minimal amount of cheap equipment and how that equipment withstands fairly heavy daily use in not always camera-friendly conditions.

I have a lot of enthusiasm for photography and like nothing better than to get others excited about it, too. The most common complaints from beginner/sometime photographers is they are not happy with the quality of their photos and they can’t afford a “good” camera body and ten “professional” lenses and the top-of-the-line flash needed to get the quality photos they want. It is a very common misconception that more expensive, even “professional” camera bodies and lenses will improve the photographs people take. There is very little truth in this belief, even less so with modern digital equipment than with the film cameras and lenses of 15 or 20 years ago. Computer-aided-design for lens optical formulations, modern composite materials for camera bodies and even lens mounts, cheaper fabrication methods for specialty glass and the advent of molded as opposed to ground lens elements have all contributed to a much more level playing field concerning final image quality between the cheapest and most expensive products in any maker’s camera and lens lines-ups.

The old saying “the photographer makes the photo, not the camera” has always been basic to my personal philosophy. Not quite two years ago all of my gear was stolen from my car trunk after a wedding shoot and I had to start over completely from scratch. Having used Minolta film and then digital bodies and lenses for 30 years, and then continuing with Sony, it was time for a change. I settled on Canon because I really liked their lens selection, range of bodies, compact cameras and reputation. As an introduction to the Canon system I purchased the most basic complete kit I could find for under $800: digital Rebel XSi body with 18-55mm and 55-250mm image stabilized kit zooms. This could just as easily been a similar “intro” kit from Nikon or Pentax or Sony or Olympus, etc… I wanted basic functionality with the cheapest lenses at a rock-bottom price just like someone looking for their first “real” camera outfit would be likely to buy.

My idea was to debunk the “better, more expensive” equipment myth. Right out of the box I was amazed at the image quality of the “kit” lenses: sharp and contrasty throughout the full zoom range, no obvious vignetting at the corners and minimal barrel/pincushion distortion. Weight of the new body plus both lenses was about half of my previous “professional” body with 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. Size was also much smaller all around, requiring some getting-used-to because my hands are large but much easier to pack and carry around. The body gave me more megapixels and a full stop more speed without obvious noise than my previous bodies. So far, so good. Anyone would find it difficult, in a side-by-side comparison on a monitor or with prints, to tell whether an image was made with a Rebel XSi body and 18-55mm IS zoom or with a D700 body and 24-105mm “L” lens.